This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

Why does CIT have NO eyewitnesses to a flyover?

<< 1 2 3 4 >>

Topic started on 18-11-2008 @ 07:31 AM by jthomas

I'm starting this thread as a repository for any and all positive, verifiable eyewitness reports or media reports about any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by Citizens Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Neither group has been able to produce any eyewitnesses anywhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon or surrounding area that would support their claim of a flyover, including Pentagon police officer, Roosevelt Roberts, whose statement demonstrates he did not see a jet fly low and fast over the Pentagon.

Without any positive, verifiable testimony of a flyover, CIT and P4T are unable to demonstrate that any flyover actually took place. Rather than repeat endless arguments that have already taken place on other threads, let's use this thread to bring the necessary evidence for a flyover to the forefront to help CIT and P4T prove their claims.

Remember, that according to CIT' and P4T's claims, eyewitnesses near and around the Pentagon would have seen and heard a very noticeable and LOUD jet very much like this high-speed, low flyby of a Boeing 757:

YouTube Link

[edit on 18-11-2008 by jthomas]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by jthomas]

Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics | Top Topics | This Week | Subscribe | Home

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:35 AM by forshow

" 911 was an inside job" as said by alex jones

not a one liner

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:30 AM by Craig Ranke CIT

Another thread on this?

Sheesh.

I guess I should thank you for giving so much attention to this important evidence.

Ok I'll explain it to you and the new members once again for posterity.

We present 13 independent eyewitness accounts proving the plane flew on the north side of the former citgo gas station.

This proves that the plane did not hit the building since a plane in this location is irreconcilable with all physical damage including the 5 downed light poles.

You can see many of these north side witnesses in Part 1 of The North Side Flyover here:

Google Video Link

However the title to your OP has been proven false, as you know, since in Part 2 we present an exclusive interview with Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion:

Google Video Link

So this first critical flyover witness, along with the other north side witnesses presented in Part 2, including heliport Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger, definitively prove the plane flew over the building.

We believe there are more witnesses who saw the plane flying away but there wouldn't be as many as most think primarily because the Pentagon is right next door to Reagan National Airport and large commericial jets are making fast ascents over the river right next to the Pentagon all day long every few minutes of every day.

Locals are quite used to this.

And as you can see in the above overhead image there isn't much on the other side of the Pentagon except the Potomac River where planes are taking off and landing constantly.

So a plane flying away would be of little consequence after most people were completely surprised by the big explosion and had their eyes fixed on the smoking Pentagon.

Of course the perpetrators covered their tracks.

We know for a fact that they confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 call tapes and transcripts that would reveal what people really initially reported before the media propaganda machine set in.

But they also implemented a very elaborate and detailed 2nd plane cover story by using real planes that were later in the airspace, like the C-130 and E4B, and ambiguously merging them with false tales of a "2nd plane" that was allegedly "shadowing" AA77 and veered away from the building immediately after the attack.

This of course never happened but serves as perfect cover for the flyover.

See this presentation for full details and exclusive interviews with the above proven incorrect alleged witnesses:

Google Video Link

Thanks for taking the time to go over all of this critical independent verifiable evidence that proves a deception on 9/11 and thanks to jthomas for making sure it stays on the front pages and in everyone's minds.

Please help us demand an end to the fraudulent war on terror and justice for the victims of this horrendous war crime used as fuel for the ubiquitous military industrial complex.

Ike was right.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 12:57 PM by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

a plane in this location is irreconcilable with all physical damage including the 5 downed light poles.

Translation:

All the physical evidence proves that despite the witness testimony ( that oops, also say the plane hit the building ) , the plane did not fly NoC.

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 05:26 PM by pinch

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... we present an exclusive interview with Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane flying away from the building immediately after the explosion

This is the classic technique used by the CiT edit. Put out some incredible piece of unbelievable BS and refuse to answer any questions about the BS. Roberts is saying this 155 foot long airliner with a 124 foot wingspan is flying over a 2,000-plus car parking lot of a building that holds 25,000 people at 9:40 (or is it 9:10?) on a Tuesday morning, and NOBODY ELSE SEES IT.

If there are no other witnesses to such an event, and if nobody else sees it, then your witness is a) wrong, b) mistaken, c) lying through his grommet or d) being manipulated by charlatans. I vote for D.

For those unfamiliar with the CIT edit tactics, they routinely change their witnesses stories. Air Controller Sean Boger's testimony states very clearly that he saw the aircraft hit the building:

I'll be real clear here. Ranke and Alpo will change their witnesses stories/testimony/comments so that it better matches their own idea of what happened. They will lie.

Go back and read what Ranke said about Boger:

How can Boger "prove the plane flew over the building" when Boger says "I just watched it hit the building".

Ranke is a rank liar. He will defend himself by saying Boger "deduced" or "imagined" or believed" or "thought" or "heard" or "dreamed" or "was told" or whatever that the aircraft hit the building, but actually when Boger says he watched it hit the building, what he really means is that he "didn't" actually see the impact.

Ranke and his ilkedit. This is proof positive.

Ranke also thinks that a couple of cross country road-trips with his buddy Alpo make him an expert on the DC/Arlington area. That is laughable on its face. Having driven past the Pentagon every work day for nearly 10 years now and working in the building a good portion of that time, going running during lunch down by the marina and along the riverbank towards DCA or towards Memorial Bridge, I can assert without reservation that his claim that "...there isn't much on the other side of the Pentagon except the Potomac River..." is nothing but garbage. North parking is there, with an additional 3,000+ parking for the Pentagon, a major riverbank parkway (George Washington Memorial), another major road (Route 110), the marina, and the 14th street bridge complex that handles nearly 300,000 cars every day, not to mention Many multi-story buildings of Crystal City and Pentagon City have the ability to over look this area, as does the tower from Reagan National, a mere 1 1/4 mile away.

Yeah..."...there isn't much on the other side of the Pentagon except the Potomac River..." - only if that is what you want people to believe.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by pinch]

Mod Note: Please Review - Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 18/11/2008 by Sauron]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 06:46 PM by jthomas

I'll just remind Craig Ranke that this thread is devoted to providing "positive, verifiable eyewitness reports or media reports about any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon."

We are not interested in your eyewitnesses who either stated they saw a jet hit the Pentagon, believed one did, or did not see any jet fly over the Pentagon. All of the ones you have presented to date, and re-posted above, fall into one of those three categories and are not eyewitnesses to a flyover, as has been shown for many, many months now.

The effort here is for posters to provide actual and verifiable eyewitnesses to a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon, eyewitnesses who are necessary to demonstrate that a jet actually flew over and away from the Pentagon as CIT and P4T claims.

I know CIT and P4T have not been able to so maybe some other readers here can provide that critical and necessary evidence.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by jthomas]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:08 PM by SPreston

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation. With aircraft flying up and down the Potomac every day all day long, what is one more plane? Also quite often there are helicopters flying by, headed over to the Pentagon helipad or Arlington National Cemetery.

Much better things to do on 9-11-2001 between watching the WTC on the boob tube and watching the big column of smoke rising over the Pentagon. Who wants to be plane watching when there are much more exciting and horrific things going on?

Perhaps the Mainstream News Media might like to get involved; doing what they are trained for. There might be a few Pulitzer prizes available for the right professional journalists. And since there is not one single known eyewitness in the entire world who saw a light pole flying through the air headed for Lloyde's windshield, nor an eyewitness who saw a light pole sticking out of the taxi windshield, nor an eyewitness who saw two guys removing a light pole from a taxi windshield on Hwy 27; then perhaps there is another Pulitzer prize just begging for action.

[edit on 11/18/08 by SPreston]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:24 PM by djeminy

reply to post by pinch

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

If Boger heard 'the metal going through the building' while he was lying on the ground,
it should be obvious that he couldn't, at the same time, "see" the plane hit.
He must obviously have been deducing this.

Boger clearly stated that the plane approached from NOC. This eliminates the possibility
that the plane could have hit the building, as this would 'fly' in the face of the damage
observed.

Elementary, really.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:34 PM by SPreston

posted by djeminy
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

If Boger heard 'the metal going through the building' while he was lying on the ground,
it should be obvious that he couldn't, at the same time, "see" the plane hit.
He must obviously have been deducing this.

Boger clearly stated that the plane approached from NOC. This eliminates the possibility
that the plane could have hit the building, as this would 'fly' in the face of the damage
observed.

Elementary, really.

It certainly is just elementary common sense and logic. "the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us" is a long long distance away from the official flight path and the big explosion going off at the Pentagon wall there. Sean Boger was in the helipad control tower when he saw the decoy aircraft coming over the roof of the Naval Annex, banking right, and coming right at him.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:36 PM by cashlink

reply to post by jthomas

HAMPTON ROADS WOMAN SAYS SHE, TOO, SAW PLANE FOLLOWING JET THAT HIT PENTAGON

Link to article

Mystery C-130 over Pentagon at time of Attack

Kelly Knowles, who lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon in Fairfax County, says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon, she said some sort of plane followed the first jet toward the Pentagon, “… when a low-flying, high-speed plane buzzed the high-rise, she jumped up, ran to the windows and saw the rear of a jet heading toward Washington, D.C. A few seconds later, a second plane that seemed to be chasing the first passed over at a slightly different angle.”[ii] This also coincided with what Keith Wheelhouse, her brother and who was ex-Army, saw: “The second plane looked similar to a C-130 transport plane… He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.” Then, “… the second plane banked off to the west.” His sister, Pam Young, and at least one other person, collaborated the story but weren’t sure what type of aircraft it was.199
FBI agents interviewed both Knowles and Keith Wheelhouse. A Pentagon official denied that another plane was flying with the jetliner, but admitted “it was possible a military plane was in the area at the time of the attack.”199
In an almost identical account, Allen Cleveland stated, “My brother-in-law also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the treetops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. And soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.” [iii]

Official Confirms a C-130 crew did see the Pentagon strike.
Witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon had denied the presence of the C-130. However, almost a month and a half later, the Daily Press reported on the (dubbed) October 17th Surprise:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning… said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon claimed it had no knowledge of the C-130’s encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard…[!][xi]

So their excuse for deceiving us was “We didn’t know because — it was classified!” 208 It’s a bad lie because NORAD and NMCC obviously would have been tracking the C-130, unless it has some type of top-secret Klingon “cloaking technology”.

911exposed.org...

Pentagon Tries to Explain the C-130

Was the Pentagon truthful with us?
No. Only after they were starting to look like more of a liar than usual, did they back down and admit to the presence of the C-130 over the Pentagon. This was probably from the adamant insistence of eyewitnesses that wouldn’t succumb to the government debriefings. It took them over a month to announce the retraction on Oct 17, 2001. And of course, there was a good story to accompany the report. Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman, made the following statement:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington at an unusual angle… Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane ‘to let us know where it’s going,’ McClellan said. The C-130 pilot “followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,” he said. “He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball.”199 [Emphasis added]

Was Steve O’Brien truthful with us?
After Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, was exposed, he and the government attempted to downplay and spin the incident — they even made him one of their witnesses! The Pentagon’s story was that the C-130 cargo plane had been piloted by, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien of the Minnesota Air National Guard. He and his crew just left Andrews Air Force Base (13 miles from the Pentagon), and were heading back to Minneapolis-St. Paul after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. Here are some excepts from his statement:

Did the “October surprise” lead to another surprise?
Yet, Steve O’Brien put it best, “…and there was another surprise –– the story turned up on the Internet as part of a conspiracy theory maintaining that no plane hit the Pentagon.” Yes, and there was very good reason for that, thanks to the unbelievable statements like his — which only were fabricated because the government was caught with its “pants pulled down”.
The reality was … eyewitnesses tracked his plane flying directly above a low-flying airliner and guiding it to the Pentagon. It was seen circling above the Pentagon before the airliner allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Also at Shanksville, the C-130 was they’re circling before the shoot down occurred. So unless everyone else is a liar… And what he was really doing there can only be left up to the imagination…

911exposed.org...

Yes! there is proof there was another plane.

Mod edit: Fixed first link.

[edit on 11/18/2008 by Hal9000]

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:46 PM by jthomas

Let me remind SPreston and djeminy that this thread is concerned with providing positive and verifiable eyewitness evidence that a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

We are not concerned with speculation but with actual verifiable evidence. What is known quite clearly is that the flyover CIT and P4T claimed took place would have had to have been at a low altitude and very high speed that would have startled any witness and was completely out of parameters in altitude, speed, and direction for any flight to or from Reagan.

Also, it is quite clear that Sean Boger was in a position to see a collision of any aircraft with the Pentagon from his position and he so stated. He is not an eyewitness to any flyover.

Again, let's keep this thread in bounds for verified eyewitness and media reports of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. So far, there have been none.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:55 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by cashlink

Mystery C-130 over Pentagon at time of Attack

The C-130 and the E4B are not at issue here. Both were seen and verified but neither are the aircraft CIT and P4T are claiming is the aircraft their witnesses saw.

Again, please respect this thread and do not re-post irrelevant material that has nothing to do with the jet CIT and P4T claimed flew over and away from the Pentagon.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:58 PM by cashlink

reply to post by jthomas

Lets also remind people to think for them selves, however if you think that is not proof that is your opinion only, thank you.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 07:59 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by SPreston

It certainly is just elementary common sense and logic. "the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us" is a long long distance away from the official flight path and the big explosion going off at the Pentagon wall there. Sean Boger was in the helipad control tower when he saw the decoy aircraft coming over the roof of the Naval Annex, banking right, and coming right at him.

Sean Boger states the aircraft hit the Pentagon. He was in a position to see it hit. He never claimed to see any aircraft fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Please stick to the topic, SPreston.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 08:05 PM by jthomas

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by jthomas

Lets also remind people to think for them selves, however if you think that is not proof that is your opinion only, thank you.

I'll remind you that I am asking for for people here to provide verifiable eyewitness testimony that an jet aircraft was seen flying low and at high speed over and away from the Pentagon as claimed by CIT and P4T as clearly presented in the first post of this thread.

Please read carefully so that you do not confuse the C-130 and E4B for the postulated aircraft under discussion.

Any evidence that you can provide to support CIT's claims of a flyover is welcomed.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 08:16 PM by cashlink

reply to post by jthomas

Profile: Steve O’Brien
Steve O’Brien was a participant or observer in the following events:
9.36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77

A typical C-130. [Source: US Air Force Reserve Command]Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/16/2001; GUARDIAN, 10/17/2001] Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001). [PITTSBURGH CHANNEL, 9/15/2001; STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 6/17/2004]
Entity Tags: Pentagon, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Steve O’Brien
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane Near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies He Is Far Away
A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is the same C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [PITTSBURGH CHANNEL, 9/15/2001; STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002] A number of people see this plane fly remarkably close to Flight 77:
Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a “second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.” [DAILY PRESS (NEWPORT NEWS), 9/15/2001]
Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130; two other witnesses aren’t certain. [DAILY PRESS (NEWPORT NEWS), 9/15/2001] Wheelhouse “believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar, while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.” As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west. [DAILY PRESS (NEWPORT NEWS), 9/14/2001]
USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says, “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.” [USA TODAY, 9/17/2001]
USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane but gives few details. [EWEEK, 9/13/2001] Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a second plane. [SACRAMENTO BEE, 9/15/2001]
An unnamed worker at Arlington National Cemetery “said a mysterious second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the Pentagon.” [PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 12/20/2001]
John O’Keefe is driving a car when he sees the Pentagon crash. “The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head.… Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.” [NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, 9/12/2001]
The pilot of the C-130, Lieutenant Colonel Steve O’Brien, is later interviewed, but his account differs from the on-the-ground eyewitnesses. He claims that just before the explosion, “With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out,” implying he is not nearby. He also says that just after the explosion, “I could see the outline of the Pentagon,” again implying he is not nearby. He then asks “the controller whether [I] should set up a low orbit around the building,” but he is told “to get out of the area as quickly as possible.” “I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.” [STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 9/11/2002]
Entity Tags: Joel Sucherman, John O’Keefe, Brian Kennedy, Vin Narayanan, Steve O’Brien, Keith Wheelhouse, Pentagon, Kelly Knowles
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

www.historycommons.org...

Other people saw two airplanes when the pentagon was hit.

Perhaps this is the plane the CIT were looking at.

[edit on 11/18/2008 by cashlink]

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 08:45 PM by pinch

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 08:50 PM by cogburn

reply to post by pinch

Pinch, right on.

Anyone remember Robert Turcios?

video.google.com...

From "The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007)"

@19:30 Robert gives his account...
@23:45 Robert says "I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it, and uh, then the big explosion... the fireball and lots of smoke."

Ranke asks about him seeing the impact to which Robert responds:
"The view was obstructed, I could only see the fireball."

The Turcios interview is actually the 2nd video interview offered on the video and after watching several hours was the best conducted interview of any of them. The questions were open ended and Turcios was allowed to give his account without prompting or correction (ie Lagasse). Also unlike other witnesses (the Asian gentleman interviewed first in that video is another), after giving the initial position of the plane above the CITGO the position of the plane only changes by a few feet as he looks at the scenery and fine tunes his account.

Unfortunately Ranke not once had the presence of mind to bring a tape measure so without physically revisiting each scene none of the accounts cannot be verified as factually accurate.

Back to the OP... Turcios does not state that he saw a plane fly through the fireball or smoke. There are no witnesses on the 395 east of the Pentagon that saw a plane fly off. There are no radar tracks indicating a fly-off. The Tribby video does not show a plane fly-off, and I have already mathematically calculated that even at maximum cruising speed for a 757 the plane would have been no further than 10 miles from the Pentagon at the time of the Tribby video. Given that the plane would have been in ascent and under 500ft after passing the Pentagon, attaining max cruise speed is physically impossible. Giving a very generous estimate of 350mph for our acrobatic airliner, this puts the plane no further than 5-7 miles from the Pentagon at the time of the Tribby video. If Tribby did not see the plane, the person driving the car probably did.... not to mention everyone else on the 395 at the time.

Let's look at the released security camera footage from the Pentagon.

YouTube Link

This video clearly shows the majority of the plane disappearing inside of the fireball on impact. Given that there is a small rise between Turcios and the impact point at the Pentagon, this video is 100% in keeping with Turcio's testimony.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:02 PM by cogburn

Redacted. If it becomes relevant I'll repost.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-11-2008 @ 09:11 PM by SPreston

posted by cogburn
Anyone remember Robert Turcios? His testimony not only matches the north side fly over theory, his depiction of the flight path is ALSO consistent with the destruction of the light poles.

@23:45 Robert says "I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it, and uh, then the big explosion... the fireball and lots of smoke."

Didn't you forget something? Didn't Turcios describe an aircraft pull up at the Hwy 27 overhead sign? How can a large aircraft pull up and still hit the building 1st floor? Since no light poles were knocked down along that flight path, then the aircraft had to be 40+ feet above ground level along that entire flight path. Correct?